Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: RIC VI Cyzicus 100  (Read 3736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« on: October 17, 2004, 05:54:45 am »
I just found Licinius' coin which looks like RIC VI Cyzicus 100 but the obverse legend is 1b (IMP C VAL LICIN...) not 1a (VAL LICINNIANVS...) as RIC claims. Is it a new variation or another error in RIC?
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2004, 12:49:26 pm »
Pic from auction.

Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2004, 09:32:05 pm »
    On the basis of the two specimens we have in hand, and the parallel of the legends for Maximinus II and Constantine, I think we can be pretty sure that 1a is a misprint for 1b at RIC 100.
    Unfortunately this issue cannot really be located in the Gerin catalogue, nor in Cohen.  It's also hard to find photos of such ordinary, inexpensive late Roman bronzes; none in Glasgow or Mazzini catalogues or Berk photofile, for instance.
     Again I deplore the abysmal underillustration of the early RIC volumes.  If the editors had undertaken to illustrate one of each major variety, as in RIC X, yes, the books would be even bulkier and more expensive than they are, but we would be having a lot fewer of these continually recurring discussions of possible errors, diadem forms, rev. type details, and so on!
Curtis Clay

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2004, 10:42:47 pm »
I'm not convinced it's a misprint. There's an example of this issue recorded in Hunter pg. 136, 148 with the obverse legend recorded as VAL LICINNIANVS LICINNIVS P F AVG (or RIC legend 1a), struck in officina Delta. Sadly though it's not illustrated either, but it is recorded as such. It's also recorded this way in the Gerrin catalog on pg. 137, 13. It's also recorded in Maurice this way. I can see RIC copying Gerrin and or Maurice, but I have trouble seeing Anne Robertson making the same mistake when she had the coin in hand.

Barry Murphy


Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2004, 11:07:28 pm »
    Gerin Cat., p. 137, no. 13 has mintmark MKV not SMK and eagle not altar in rev. type.  So it is not RIC 100, but RIC 83, which indeed has obv. legend 1a.
    So Hunter 148 as reported by Miss Robertson, plus Maurice according to Barry, which I do not own, so far support 1a at RIC 100, while in favor of 1b we have Lech's and the Wildwinds coin, plus the parallel of Max. II and Constantine.  
     I still prefer the evidence I can see myself, and do not think it impossible that Miss R. and M. are wrong!
     Once more: wouldn't it be useful if RIC VI had illustrated a specimen of Cyzicus 100?
Curtis Clay

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2004, 07:11:54 am »
Thank you, Curtis and Barry, for your thorough investigations. I am convinced in 75% that there is a misprint in RIC.

PRO

1. Two or three specimens. One I have found earlier and the second I just found on the page http://www.arsantiqva.com/ (misattributed as RIC VII 2: see picture below - sorry for the poor quality because its a screen capture from the PDF file). Unfortunately the third specimen (from Wildwinds, misattributed as RIC 102)  has a striking weakness in very important part of the reverse legend (after AVGV) and we simply don’t know if there is only STI or STI CMH. I previously thought that space between letters suggests that there is no room for CMH but I found example of RIC 102 on the FORVM’s page https://www.forumancientcoins.com/pic3.asp?param=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/02515q00.jpg&id=4623&pak=937.09459&heavy=0
and now I am not so sure.

2. Parallel of the legends for Maximinus II and Constantine

CONTRA

1. Consensus between RIC, Maurice and Miss Robertson.

2. Inexplicable reason why in RIC VI Licinius has a separate number for this issue (i.e. 100) but Maximinus II and Constantine are listed as 101a and 101b

So the next task is to find that coin which was LISTED in RIC as Cyzicus 100.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline curtislclay

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 11155
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2004, 10:20:09 am »
     According to a terse reply from the chief curator Dr. Dembski, the Vienna Cabinet contains coins of this type with BOTH of the obverse legends in question!

Lieber Herr Kollege!
Im Wiener MK liegen beide Typen mehrfach vertreten.
Beste Grüsse
Ihr G. Dembski

Curtis Clay at Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. schrieb:
> Dear Dr. Dembski,
>       Would you be able to check the obverse legend of this coin for me on
> the Ku Mu specimens?
>       RIC gives legend 1a,
>
> VAL LICINNIANVS LICINNIVS P F AVG.
>
>       However a Polish correspondent of mine has acquired a specimen with 1b
> instead,
>
> IMP C VAL LICIN LICINIVS P F AVG.
>
>       The question is, is this a new variant, or just a misprint in RIC
> which should have given legend 1b not 1a?
>       Unfortunately Voetter's Gerin catalogue omits this issue so doesn't
> provide the answer!
>       The important characteristics of RIC 100 are:
>
> rev. GENIO AVGVSTI, NOT followed by CMH
>
> ALTAR, not eagle, at feet of Genius
>
> Mintmark SMK, not MKV.
>
> So, does the obv. legend of the Ku Mu specimens of this coin begin VAL
> LICINNIANVS, or IMP C VAL LICIN?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Yours,
>
> Curtis Clay
>
Curtis Clay

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2004, 05:07:56 pm »
Dear Curtis!

Thank you very much again for your help! If Dr Dembski is right, there are two variations of Licinus' legends in this issue. The old: VAL LICINNIANVS... and the new one: IMP C VAL LICIN... which was used by Licinius till his death. So unexpectedly the both opinions could be reconciled.
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline bpmurphy

  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1295
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2005, 04:59:18 pm »
Sorry to bring up an old subject, but while working up a few new purchases for inventory, I came across an example of this variety, the existence of which has been questioned. Thought I'd post it here for all to see.

Barry Murphy


Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re:RIC VI Cyzicus 100
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2005, 06:43:31 pm »
Thank you, Barry, for this beautiful example of Cyzicus 100
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity